mpo performance j. scott lane | 9.23.2010. interview highlights quick summaries of each of the six...
TRANSCRIPT
MPO PerformanceJ. Scott Lane | 9.23.2010
Interview HighlightsQuick summaries of each of the six interviews conducted thus far
Extent of Research
• Conducted Surveys of Six MPOs Thus Far– One Dropped Out (DRCOG) and One MPO Still
Outstanding (Nashville)– Six Completed
• Atlanta Regional Commission• Mid-America Regional Council (Kansas City)• Metropolitan Council (Minneapolis-St. Paul)• SANDAG (San Diego)• Pinellas County (Tampa, Florida)• Capital Area (Austin, Texas)
Atlanta Regional Commission
• Very Large in Area (18 Counties)• Air Quality Influences
– Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA)
– Investigation of Transit and Managed Lane Expansions
– Massive Air Quality Modeling and Conformity Program
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
• Very Large in Population (3million+)• All in One County• Aggressively Pursuing Sustainability Actions
– Part of a Statewide Initiative– Senate Bill 375 Extended the MPO Responsibilities
(Additional Meetings, Enhanced Fiscal Constraint) to Regulate Sustainability Planning
• Five Technical Committees– policy, transportation/transit, regional planning, public
safety, and borders
Pinellas County (Tampa, FL)
• One-County MPO• Part of a Larger, Regional Planning Effort
– MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee– Six MPOs and One Rural County– Staff Support Rotates through each MPO Every 18 Months– Develop a regional transportation plan, regional priorities, public
engagement plan, and regional citizen’s advisory and technical committees
• Considering Status as a Possible Independent MPO
Capital Area (Austin, TX)
• All or Parts of Five Counties• Very Fast-Growing Population• Perhaps the Most Like the Metrolina MPOs
– Relationship with DOT– Funding Sources– Land Development Patterns and Authority
• Organizational Change– Potential Discussions for Housing and Independence of the
MPO Staff– Moving State Legislators Off the Board (2010)
Mid-America Regional Council (Kansas City, KS/MS)
• Nine Counties and 2million Population• Undertakes a Broad Array of Functions / Activities
– SmartPort– Traffic Signal Operation– Safety Planning– Ridesharing/Commute Options
• Forward-Looking Initiatives– Creating Quality Places (20 Neighborhood Principles)– Imagine KC (Sustainability and Connectedness)
• Works Closely with State Legislative Representatives• Independent MPO
Metropolitan Council(Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN)
• Dominant Force in the State (43% of All Transportation Funding is Directed to this Area)
• Seven Counties, 33 Board members• Strong Statewide Requirements for Comprehensive
Plan Development• “Best DOT/MPO Relationship in the Country”• Fairly Complex Planning Process that Requires Some
Education for New Member/Participants• Combined RPC/MPO Structure
Survey ResultsBroad overview of survey issues, response levels and major results
Survey Response Rates
Atlanta Regional Commission
Metropolitan Council*
Nashville Area MPO*
Mid-America Regional Council
Capital Area (Austin) MPO
Pinellas County MPO
San Diego Association of Governments*
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Response
*Did not participate or participate fully in survey
Respondent Affiliations
Law Enforcement Agency
Limited English Proficiency Advocacy
Freight Industry
Other DOT Office
Minority Advocacy
Mobility Handicapped Advocacy
Low-Income Advocacy
Environmental Advocacy Organization
Airport / Aviation Service Provider
Appointed Official (not elected by popular vote)
Environmental Resource Agency
Public Transportation Provider
DOT Division / District Office
Other (safety, COG staff, regional authority, senior mobility)
Bicycle / Pedestrian Advocacy Group or Committee
MPO Support Staff
County Staff
Member of a MPO Policy Committee (TAC)
Elected Official
Municipal Staff
Member of a MPO Technical Committee
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Comparison of ParticipantsM
PO
Te
chn
ica
l Co
mm
itte
e
MP
O P
olic
y C
om
mitt
ee
En
viro
nm
en
tal R
eso
urc
e A
ge
ncy
Pu
blic
Tra
nsp
ort
atio
n P
rovi
de
r
Air
po
rt /
Avi
atio
n S
erv
ice
Pro
vid
er
Bic
ycle
/ P
ed
est
ria
n A
dvo
cacy
Fre
igh
t In
du
stry
DO
T D
ivis
ion
/ D
istr
ict
Off
ice
Oth
er
DO
T O
ffic
e
Ele
cte
d O
ffic
ial
Ap
po
inte
d O
ffic
ial (
no
t e
lect
ed
)
La
w E
nfo
rce
me
nt
Ag
en
cy
Min
ori
ty A
dvo
cacy
Lo
w-I
nco
me
Ad
voca
cy
Lim
ited
En
glis
h P
rofic
ien
cy A
dvo
cacy
Mo
bili
ty H
an
dic
ap
pe
d A
dvo
cacy
Mu
nic
ipa
l Sta
ff
Co
un
ty S
taff
MP
O S
up
po
rt S
taff
En
viro
nm
en
tal A
dvo
cacy
Org
an
iza
tion
Oth
er
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Metrolina Region
National Peers
Respondent Affiliations
Res
pons
e R
ate
Performance OverviewL
oc
ati
ng
an
d im
ple
me
nti
ng
ne
w r
ev
en
u...
Na
tio
na
l Pe
ers
Co
ord
ina
tio
n w
ith
ou
r s
tate
de
pa
rtm
en
t ...
Na
tio
na
l Pe
ers
Co
ord
ina
tio
n w
ith
loc
al g
ov
ern
me
nt
ag
e...
Na
tio
na
l Pe
ers
Ed
uc
ati
ng
an
d e
ng
ag
ing
th
e p
ub
lic o
n t
...
Na
tio
na
l Pe
ers
Ad
he
rin
g t
o f
ed
era
l an
d lo
ca
l re
qu
ire
m...
Na
tio
na
l Pe
ers
Ad
dre
ss
ing
air
qu
alit
y is
su
es
Na
tio
na
l Pe
ers
Co
ord
ina
tin
g e
ffic
ien
t re
gio
na
l la
nd
us
e...
Na
tio
na
l Pe
ers
Co
ord
ina
tio
n w
ith
ne
arb
y m
etr
op
olit
an
a...
Na
tio
na
l Pe
ers
Performance GapDoing Now
Survey Issues
• A Perceptual Assessment of Performance• Dominating Participation from MARC• Lack of or Under-Participation from METC,
SANDAG, and Nashville• Provides Some Insights
– Performance Gap Perception– “Spread” Equals Performance Diversity– Consistent Lower/Higher Scores for Some Issues (Air
Quality and Engaging the Public)
Individual Performance ComparisonsEach issue is arranged by desire to perform and current performance
Locating & Implementing New Revenue Sources
Met
roli
na
Atl
anta
Reg
iona
l Com
mis
sion
Cap
ital
Are
a (A
usti
n) M
PO
Met
ropo
lita
n C
ounc
il
Mid
-Am
eric
a R
egio
nal C
ounc
il
Pin
ella
s C
ount
y M
PO
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
MPOs Should Do WellOur MPO is Effective at Now
Coordination With Our State DOT
MPOs Should Do WellOur MPO is Effective at Now
Met
roli
na
Atl
anta
Reg
iona
l Com
mis
sion
Cap
ital
Are
a (A
usti
n) M
PO
Met
ropo
lita
n C
ounc
il
Mid
-Am
eric
a R
egio
nal C
ounc
il
Pin
ella
s C
ount
y M
PO
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
Coordination with Local Government Agencies
Met
roli
na
Atl
anta
Reg
iona
l Com
mis
sion
Cap
ital
Are
a (A
usti
n) M
PO
Met
ropo
lita
n C
ounc
il
Mid
-Am
eric
a R
egio
nal C
ounc
il
Pin
ella
s C
ount
y M
PO
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
MPOs Should Do WellOur MPO is Effective at Now
Educating and Engaging the Public
Met
roli
na
Atl
anta
Reg
iona
l Com
mis
sion
Cap
ital
Are
a (A
usti
n) M
PO
Met
ropo
lita
n C
ounc
il
Mid
-Am
eric
a R
egio
nal C
ounc
il
Pin
ella
s C
ount
y M
PO
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
MPOs Should Do WellOur MPO is Effective at Now
Adhering To Federal and Local Requirements
Met
roli
na
Atl
anta
Reg
iona
l Com
mis
sion
Cap
ital
Are
a (A
usti
n) M
PO
Met
ropo
lita
n C
ounc
il
Mid
-Am
eric
a R
egio
nal C
ounc
il
Pin
ella
s C
ount
y M
PO
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
MPOs Should Do WellOur MPO is Effective at Now
Addressing Air Quality Issues
MPOs Should Do WellOur MPO is Effective at Now
Met
roli
na
Atl
anta
Reg
iona
l Com
mis
sion
Cap
ital
Are
a (A
usti
n) M
PO
Met
ropo
lita
n C
ounc
il
Mid
-Am
eric
a R
egio
nal C
ounc
il
Pin
ella
s C
ount
y M
PO
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
Coordinating Efficient Regional Land Use and Transportation Choice to Reduce Costs
Atl
anta
Reg
iona
l Com
mis
sion
Cap
ital
Are
a (A
usti
n) M
PO
Met
roli
na
Met
ropo
lita
n C
ounc
il
Mid
-Am
eric
a R
egio
nal C
ounc
il
Pin
ella
s C
ount
y M
PO
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
MPOs Should Do WellOur MPO is Effective at Now
Coordination with Nearby Metropolitan and Rural Planning Organizations
MPOs Should Do WellOur MPO is Effective at Now
Atl
anta
Reg
iona
l Com
mis
sion
Cap
ital
Are
a (A
usti
n) M
PO
Met
roli
na
Met
ropo
lita
n C
ounc
il
Mid
-Am
eric
a R
egio
nal C
ounc
il
Pin
ella
s C
ount
y M
PO
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Next StepsLessons Learned, Contents of Draft Report and Roll-Out
Lessons Learned: FundingPeers• Most of the MPOs studied
have a better perception of their level of control over funding streams
• Direct: Tax revenue streams allocated by the MPO
• Indirect: Extraordinary levels of contact with legislative bodies and State DOT
Metrolina Potential Actions
1. Formulate a Legislative Session annually to develop a joint, regional program of priorities and talking points, supporting information, etc.
2. Establish quarterly meetings with State DOT to assess progress on financing and implementing projects
Purpose: Identify, Allocate, and Manage Transportation Finances
Lessons Learned: Decision-MakingPeers• Most MPOs have larger
staffs and operate under state laws that speak more directly to planning requirements than in N.C.
• Weighted voting, arcane quorum requirements are generally OUT
• Technical advisory committees, group representation are IN
Metrolina Potential Actions
1. Consider non-traditional committees and expanding membership on existing committees to include school boards, transit, freight, resource agencies
2. Ultimately, a single, independent regional authority would provide more leverage to tackle major transportation issues
Purpose: Streamline Operations while Creating Leverage
Lessons Learned: CollaborationPeers• Personalities are important;
strategic hires to work with key external agencies are not uncommon
• Leveling of the playing field can be created by having a dual voting system (e.g., SANDAG) with both simple and weighted majority required
Metrolina Potential Actions
1. For any regional structure, consider formal weighted/unweighted voting for every action
2. Establish a formal interlocal agreement outlining any regional structure or ongoing regional action
Purpose: Ensuring “Voice” and Regional Decision-Making Power
Lessons Learned: CommunicationPeers• Not many MPOs thought
that they were doing an excellent job communicating with the public
• Dedicate a PIO position• Fewer Public Meetings• CAC: Commonplace, but a
lot of work and effort• Mini-Grants
Metrolina Potential Actions
1. Get citizen representation on all boards
2. Exhibit caution with developing a singular citizen’s advisory committee (cost, role, authority, etc.)
3. Dedicate resources to a common PIO position(s) to serve all four MPOs
Purpose: Creating an Effective, Two-Way Planning Process
Lessons Learned: Regional PlanningPeers
• All MPOs studied have some form of regional planning that involves land use effects on transportation
• Some have a state mandate (e.g., Metropolitan Council, SANDAG) that partially obviates the need for special studies
• Parallel efforts not entirely driven by the MPO also influence the transportation plans
Metrolina Potential Actions
Develop a regional planning framework that identifies regional transportation corridors and facilities; major deficiencies; and land use development options to increase alternatives to and mitigation of congestion. Identify update periods and regional-scale funding priorities to start an ongoing dialogue.
Purpose: Creating meaningful regional actions
Next Steps: Reporting
• Contents of Draft Report– Cross-Tabulation Ideas
• Break Out Respondent Types?• Separate Out MARC from Other MPOs?
• Degree and Content of Recommendations– Possible Solutions for Low-Scoring Areas– Impact of Pending Federal Reauthorization and State Actions– Bigger Range and Specific Guidance on Public Engagement Techniques– Staged Coordination / Consolidation
• Stage One: Strengthen Regional Body• Stage Two: Develop Regional Transportation Plan• Stage Three: Possible Organization Changes
Next Steps: Presentation
• When: October 28, 2010 @ 8AM• How: Presentation + Forum• Advance Materials and Release of Report• Summary of Report and Contents